In every business relationship there is the potential for conflict over contractual agreements or business operations. When such conflicts arise, there is no need to incur the onerous expense and delays involved in traditional litigation. There are readily available alternative dispute resolution procedures that will enable you to resolve your disputes relatively quickly, fairly and cost-effectively.

Resolving international disputes demands special skills, experience and cultural sensitivity. That’s why thousands of attorneys and their clients turn to JAMS. We are a recognized leader in cross-border mediations and arbitrations, with resources wherever you or your clients do business.

Colleges and universities need to manage, resolve and prevent conflict. As a worldwide leader in dispute resolution, JAMS is singularly qualified to provide a comprehensive range of unique and effective solutions for problems facing students, faculty and administration.

The JAMS ADR blog serves to engage our clients, the legal community and the public in a discussion about alternative dispute resolution. As leaders in mediation, arbitration and more, we strive to remain at the forefront of legal developments, trends and news in areas of law that pertain to ADR.

International commercial arbitration is one of the fastest-growing practices at JAMS. With industry leading rules, JAMS is praised for a highly experienced panel with specialties in many key areas, multilingual case management capabilities, and unparalleled service. JAMS specializes in the resolution of international disputes and is one of the largest providers of commercial arbitration in the world.

JAMS ADR Blog

Washington Supreme Court Finds No Prejudice in Arbitration Contract

February 7, 2013

Richard Birke is a JAMS consultant and has taught dispute resolution for more than 20 years. He is a law school professor and director of the Center for Dispute Resolution at Willamette. Under his leadership, CDR has enjoyed more than a decade of high national rankings in the US and is the 2012 winner of the Ninth Circuit ADR Education Award. Mr. Birke is a two-time award‑winning author, as well as an ADR neutral, consultant and trainer.

It was a surprise to me the first time I found out that the nationally-known firm Doctor’s Associates was the corporate name for the Subway Sandwiches chain. The chain is now the second largest food vendor in the world with more than 37,000 franchisees. With a workforce that large, it is not a surprise that the name Doctor’s Associates occasionally makes its way into the name of a case.

In 1995, Doctor’s Associates became responsible for one of the most famous arbitration cases of all time – Doctor’s Associates v. Casarotto. In that case, the Montana Supreme Court said that Casarotto did not have to arbitrate with Subway because the arbitration clause violated Montana law that required arbitration clauses to be written in capital letters on the first page of any contract containing such a clause. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Montanans, finding their state law to be in violation of the requirement of the Federal Arbitration Act that arbitration contracts be placed on the same footing as any other contract.

In January, another franchisee, based in Washington, was relieved from some of the obligations of an arbitration clause he signed in a Subway franchise agreement. In Saleemi v. Doctor’s Associates, the franchisee, Waqas Saleemi was terminated from his three Subway franchises because he was suspected to be working for a rival sandwich shop. When Saleemi filed suit, Doctor’s Associates argued that he had to travel to Connecticut to arbitrate because he had voluntarily signed a contract with a forum selection clause. A Washington state court judge ruled that Saleemi did not have to go because the forum selection clause was unconscionable. Instead, the arbitration would occur in Washington.

The arbitration went forward and Saleemi won. Doctor’s Associates’ appealed and the Washington Supreme Court held that they had shown no prejudice from moving the arbitration to Washington. As the arbitration provider was a national company, Doctor’s Associates even got the same brand of arbitration they would have gotten had they been in Connecticut.

The Court concluded, “We join the emerging consensus of courts and hold that a party who fails to seek discretionary review of an order compelling arbitration, must show prejudice as a condition of relief from the arbitration award. This approach promotes prime purposes of arbitration, speed and convenience, while allowing the truly aggrieved party to obtain relief.”

Perhaps this case shows that courts are moving in a new direction. In corporate law, choice-of-law provisions in contracts have enjoyed near-universal respect. In arbitration law, it seems that choice-of-law provisions enjoy something less. We’ll be watching closely to see which view will prevail -- the Washington Supreme Court’s view that the purposes of arbitration sometimes trump the parties’ choices or whether the contract will reemerge as the dominant factor. Either way, we’ll keep you posted.

Disclaimer:

This page is for general information purposes. JAMS makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy or completeness. Interested persons should conduct their own research regarding information on this website before deciding to use JAMS, including investigation and research of JAMS neutrals. See More

AUTHOR(S)

Other Articles by Author(s)

RECENT POSTS

Categories

Archives

JAMS NEWSLETTERS

ABOUT OUR BLOG

The JAMS ADR blog serves to engage our clients, the legal community and the public in a discussion about alternative dispute resolution. As leaders in mediation, arbitration and more, we strive to remain at the forefront of legal developments, trends and news in areas of law that pertain to ADR.

Welcome to the JAMS ADR blog. We hope you find it informative, interesting and we hope you visit again soon.

Sign up for email alerts

This website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the JAMS website is intended to provide general information about JAMS and an opportunity for interested persons to contact JAMS. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation. JAMS neutrals are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of JAMS services. While JAMS endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, JAMS makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. See More